By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a case that is the first of its kind, a federal court has ruled that laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in the District of Columbia must also include former homosexuals as a protected class.
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has ruled that under the D.C. Human Rights Act, a former homosexual must have the same protections as an active homosexual against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The decision handed down by Judge Maurice Ross says that the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) was wrong to dismiss the discrimination complaint of “Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays” against the National Education Association (NEA) on the basis that ex-homosexuals were not covered by the HRA's anti-discrimination protections, because they were no longer practicing homosexuals.
”We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the same civil rights that gays enjoy,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays.
PFOX had filed a discrimination complaint to the OHR after the national teachers union had refused to give the group a booth at the NEA's EXPO 2002 convention in Dallas, Texas. The NEA which is headquartered in D.C., where PFOX filed its application, said it had a policy against giving accommodations to groups which are against NEA policy or which it believes would have a disruptive effect.
Although the DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on “sexual preference,” “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression,” the OHR maintained that only homosexuals, bisexuals, “transgenders”, and cross-dressers qualified for protection under the Act. Ex-homosexuals did not qualify, because the OHR said sexual orientation was “immutable.”
P-FOX then appealed the OHR decision to the Superior Court, which has the final say over agency decisions in the nation's capital.
The Superior Court rejected that argument as “erroneous” and said the OHR had ignored the “plain language and explicitly stated intent” of the HRA, which protects plenty of circumstances subject to change such as “religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income.”
The court said that the language protected individuals on both their sexual “preference or practice,” meaning that the law also protected those who changed their sexual practices from homosexual to heterosexual.
“By failing to protect former homosexuals, the sexual orientation laws gave more rights to homosexuals than heterosexuals who were once gay,” said Griggs, who added that PFOX was happy with the result “that ex-gays are a protected class under 'sexual orientation.'”
The Superior Court did rule that the NEA was within its rights to reject PFOX's application to its annual conference on the grounds that it could prohibit the attendance of those groups, which it deemed contrary to its policies or could prove disruptive. For those reasons, the court let the OHR decision against PFOX stand.
“All sexual orientation laws and programs nationwide should now provide true diversity and equality by including former homosexuals,” said Greg Quinlan, a director of PFOX. “I have experienced more personal assaults as a former homosexual than I ever did as a gay man.”
PFOX called on the NEA to stop “denying equality to former homosexuals” and to include an ex-gay caucus member to the NEA Sexual Orientation Committee.